I think the problem is a semantic one. The word "marriage" means different things to different people. Some use it to refer to the loving commitment between people. Some think more in terms of the religious implications of the word. Some (you, obviously) think primarily in terms of the legal relationships that most countries recognize when people get "married."

As such, this whole discussion about "marriage" is not so much a disagreement about the various aspects of a loving/religious/legal relationship between people as it is a disconnect over the meaning of the word. Of course, this sort of semantic disconnect is at the heart of a huge percentage of discussions.

(Oops! I just realized that I mentioned religion. Does that mean this thread now has to be immediately locked?)

Totally agreed. That is why the issue of marriage is such a barbed one. It is a quickie incorporation in modern society. The benefits of the legal marriage are entirely ones of contract.
Personally I don't believe the state has a stake in marriage. It is nothing more than a way to generate revenue. The contractual aspects could be negotiated without the state, and the personal/religious aspects should be entirely absent the state. But because most of the world operates on the Lutheran model of marriage the state is involved. And by that understanding, a contract is a contract. A married couple under this model contracts to incorporate, and share resources. The contract can be dissolved. But the resulting damage and betrayal are much more harmful personally than simply dividing a contract that is totally devoid of emotional entanglement.
If licensed marriage didn't represent a quickie incorporation I would have never considered it. I got married to protect the woman I love, financially and in matters of personal business. I don't need a sanctioned license to love her.

What if a married couple love each other and like different things? What if they like each other so much they want the other to be happy doing things that make them smile, but they themselves don't want personally? What if each says to the other "Go on, have a ball, I'll be here having my good time when you get back or maybe I'll change my mind and come try it with you"?

We are not clones of each other. There's an implication of superiority when someone says "I like this, you have to like it too or you don't really love me".

Strikes me as a bit immature. No one is saying they are going to separate forever. Each has decided to accept the others choices and still love each other.

What if a married couple love each other and like different things? What if they like each other so much they want the other to be happy doing things that make them smile, but they themselves don't want personally? What if each says to the other "Go on, have a ball, I'll be here having my good time when you get back or maybe I'll change my mind and come try it with you"?

We are not clones of each other. There's an implication of superiority when someone says "I like this, you have to like it too or you don't really love me".

Strikes me as a bit immature. No one is saying they are going to separate forever. Each has decided to accept the others choices and still love each other.

Not as big a deal as it seems.

Now back to "Stay out of it, stay out of it"

yeah, that's largely me and the wife. I go sailing and she may or may not meet me in places. But, it's my passion not hers. We are both fine with that.

What if a married couple love each other and like different things? What if they like each other so much they want the other to be happy doing things that make them smile, but they themselves don't want personally? What if each says to the other "Go on, have a ball, I'll be here having my good time when you get back or maybe I'll change my mind and come try it with you"?

We are not clones of each other. There's an implication of superiority when someone says "I like this, you have to like it too or you don't really love me".

Strikes me as a bit immature. No one is saying they are going to separate forever. Each has decided to accept the others choices and still love each other.

Not as big a deal as it seems.

Now back to "Stay out of it, stay out of it"

I agree BUT.....life can get a little more complicated . Only last night a friend let the world know on Facebook that her marriage was over, they were living a life something like suggested above. Sometimes people are only as loyal as their options! And options can appear when separated for long periods of time. I pass no judgement on this, life happens. And some actually realize they enjoy the freedom of not living in a relationship, they may of never experienced this in their adult life before. The thing is one must live is or her life and it will go where it will go. Often people stay together for all sorts of reasons and quite often it's not love. Honesty takes courage and has consequences, not always easy.
Humansess isn't often simple and straight forward .

And (re-)marry at a drive-through - if you're in the US, at least. Here in the Netherlands, you have to get out of your car and into city hall, but the whole thing can be done in 15 mins flat.

A piece of paper isn't going to make me stay.
A good relationship with the right person, on the other hand, would. And has.
A trip to city hall doesn't make the relationship any better or worse. Does make some legal stuff a lot easier and cheaper to sort

But, again, that's just me. Not saying others should feel the same way; it's very personal and whatever feels best is the way to go.

I'll go with that - nearly 30 years of wonderful marriage and I am ready for the next 30, and all by choic; not necessity nor contract.

My personal opinion which is just that, is that if your partner dosent particularly enjoy the cruising life style and the water it's difficult to make it work . Large compromises must be made and generally someone loses out. Compatibility , meaning similar likes or views on how one wants to live are crucial. I'm sure theres exceptions but my observations are the relationships that work are the ones where both people want the same type of life.

Yes, you are correct. But as with everything, else the interwebs have made this easier. These days all you have to do to maintain the IA is take an online course once every two years (one element of two, once a year, covers your active engagement). But even if you let the IA expire the FAA requires that you work 6 months of every 2 years to maintain currency on your mechanics license. It is probably the most ignored regulation on the books in aviation, but the timing of it is the basis for my work schedule once I go cruising for no other reason than I needed to pick some kind of schedule.
I haven't used my IA for a decade. I am a senior inspector for Sikorsky. I have been signing under their authority for a long time. Using your IA is not required to maintain or hold the IA.

That is not correct, you should call your local FSDO and have a talk with them, as you will lose your IA if you don't. To get it back requires you to take the test again, which of course means an interview at the FSDO to get permission to test etc.
I have only seen the yearly requirement for continuing ed and or recency of experience waived once, and that was for a Military member that was deployed, and almost immediately upon returning Stateside, he went to the FSDO asking what to do.

All you have to do is take that on-line course once a year, not every other year.
I did the on-line thing, once, and man that was painful. I think we will come back every year about this time to visit, this is when the yearly Seminars are being held anyway, maybe I can write off part of the trip? But I doubt it.

My wife and I when we were kids lived together, as being a kid I had the same thought about Marriage, plus my Parents had recently divorced as had hers.
I married her as it is a legal contract, one that does somewhat protect her and does legitimize any children, and I didn't want to do that to a kid.
It made insurance, and property distribution should I die easier, and later when I joined the Army, gave her rights and privileges that if we weren't married she wouldn't have had.

But mostly, if you love the Woman, intend to stay with her, protect and look after her, why not marry her, even if you think of it only as a public announcement of love, whats wrong with that?

I'll tell you whats wrong with it, people don't want the commitment, the legal obligations etc

That is not correct, you should call your local FSDO and have a talk with them, as you will lose your IA if you don't. To get it back requires you to take the test again, which of course means an interview at the FSDO to get permission to test etc.
I have only seen the yearly requirement for continuing ed and or recency of experience waived once, and that was for a Military member that was deployed, and almost immediately upon returning Stateside, he went to the FSDO asking what to do.

All you have to do is take that on-line course once a year, not every other year.
I did the on-line thing, once, and man that was painful. I think we will come back every year about this time to visit, this is when the yearly Seminars are being held anyway, maybe I can write off part of the trip? But I doubt it.

Yes, you do have to have active engagement every year. As I said the online course has an annual element. I never said that you take it once every two years. I said you take a course every two years with an annual element. It is the ANNUAL element that covers your active engagement. I am not getting my annual engagement requirements waived. I am meeting them using the online option. The course I use is offered by Gleim. It is pretty painless.
I would like to be clear, this isn't what I will be doing in the future. I am not speaking hypothetically. This is how I maintain my IA now. The FAA doesn't care that I am a working inspector. My FSDO has never asked. Because I do not use my time at work to fulfill my active engagement requirements. I use the online courses, just like most IAs use the seminars that the FAA holds. The annual element of my bi annual course covers my active engagement in exactly the same way a flight safety seminar does.

This already works in property world, seems 100% applicable to any other asset.

Only applicable to other assets that--like property--do not generally depreciate in value. In particular, with property, even if you completely neglect the building, the land will retain significant value. As such, it is extraordinarily unusual for the value of any property to go to zero.

With a boat, neglect it for ten years and the value could very well go BELOW zero! That is, where you would actually have to pay someone else to haul it away and dispose of it.

If you can find someone to pay for your boat for the next ten years, more power to you, I guess. You won't get me to fall for a scam like that one, though.